(April 15, 2014 at 12:42 am)snowtracks Wrote: one thing i have noticed about atheist is that they don't have a sense of humor. we'll just have to work around that.

(April 15, 2014 at 12:42 am)snowtracks Wrote: one thing i have noticed about atheist is that they don't have a sense of humor. we'll just have to work around that.

(April 15, 2014 at 8:21 am)RobbyPants Wrote:

(April 15, 2014 at 12:42 am)snowtracks Wrote: one thing i have noticed about atheist is that they don't have a sense of humor. we'll just have to work around that.

You're saying your beliefs on abiogenesis are a joke, and we should have laughed at your post? I can do that.

(April 15, 2014 at 10:40 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(April 15, 2014 at 8:21 am)RobbyPants Wrote: You're saying your beliefs on abiogenesis are a joke, and we should have laughed at your post? I can do that.

i posted this: "starting to look like atheism is fast becoming a philosophical relic." and most everyone goes hyperventilating. really, did that not seem comical?

(April 15, 2014 at 10:40 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(April 15, 2014 at 8:21 am)RobbyPants Wrote: You're saying your beliefs on abiogenesis are a joke, and we should have laughed at your post? I can do that.

i posted this: "starting to look like atheism is fast becoming a philosophical relic." and most everyone goes hyperventilating. really, did that not seem comical?

(April 14, 2014 at 4:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 14, 2014 at 4:00 pm)snowtracks Wrote: dna looks to have both digital and analog information. wasn't too long ago, this board was telling that the cell didn't have an any information component, it was all chemistry.

Holy fucking shit, you really don't understand a single thing you ever talk about, do you?

Okay, pay attention, for the last time: "information" is not some extant thing that exists independent of minds, it is a conceptual label that we place upon things we can reliably predict and "read" after the fact.

That's a really important thing to keep in mind. You theists, you have a habit of taking complex concepts like information, morality and so on, and mistaking them for discrete entities unto themselves, when the truth is that they exist as products of human understanding. I know what you're trying to do, you're trying to say that since "information" ostensibly exists in DNA, then that information must have been created by someone, but that just demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of what information is and its relationship to thinking minds: information is read into a thing after the fact based upon its reliable attributes, it isn't something that needs to be instilled into a thing externally before it can be deciphered.

Fucking sand has information, in terms of composition, spatial position, and so on. Everything does. But there's no need for some magic being to wave a wand at it all for that information to exist, just for a mind to be able to observe it. The way you're looking at this is so completely misguided, you're basically saying that when I write a sentence here, the words start out completely meaningless until some external being performs some "information magic" on the words and makes them mean things.

Sounds ridiculous, right? Your first response is that the meaning of words, the information they possess, is bound up inextricably in your mind's ability to understand what they represent based upon what we've agreed that they mean, isn't it?

So why is it suddenly different when we're talking about DNA, beyond the fact that you're desperate to cram your god in everywhere you can?

Quote:starting to look like atheism is fast becoming a philosophical relic.

---

Wow, look at this, guys: a theist misunderstands a scientific report, and confidently asserts that atheism is doomed. Never seen that before.

Most importantly of all, let's assume you did actually know what you're talking about, Snowy: what on earth makes you think that one paper would cancel out the rest of scientific understanding?